Wouldn't impeachment ALWAYS come before an indictment or a criminal prosecution?

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by chris155au, May 7, 2019.

  1. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    11,925
    Likes Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The whole matter of whether it is possible to indict or criminally prosecute a sitting President - did this come up during the Clinton presidency? If not, why not? As far as I know, he was just impeached. Why would Congress allow a President to continue to serve if there was sufficient evidence to indict them?
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2019
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Generally, but not necessarily.

    The President's Constitutional pardon powers would seem to imply that a President could not face legal sanction until impeached (or at least not for more than a very short period of time). However, it depends on the law, as well as unwritten rules of high level officials (sometimes officials can still face sanctions even if their actions were in accordance with the law).

    I actually think there's a huge potential legal problem with current laws not affording very high level important officials a little bit more protection from ordinary legal sanctions. (If the law simply applies equally to all, it is impractical, and even potentially dangerous to the democratic process)
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2019 at 5:15 PM
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lots of reasons. It's an important position, lots of decisions and responsibility. It might simply be impractical to indict them for something minor, with them making so many potential decisions, some of which might be wrong or technically illegal.

    Also, remember that "Breaking the law" doesn't necessarily mean they did anything wrong. The laws are flawed. They're mostly just designed to give prosecutors more power to go after criminals. You don't want that power politically turned against very high level government officials. It would obviously leave things open to abuse.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2019 at 5:19 PM
  4. perdidochas

    perdidochas Advisor Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    25,673
    Likes Received:
    3,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A sitting President cannot be charged. That is what impeachment is for. The Senate obviously decided that the evidence wasn't sufficient to remove Clinton from office.
     
  5. BaghdadBob

    BaghdadBob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The donks refused to review the evidence.

    Let me repeat - no donk ever looked at the Starr report to review the mountain of evidence just like no donk has read the mueller report to find that there's no there there. It's politics & the party before country for the left.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  6. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    11,925
    Likes Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then why was there so much media talk as to whether or not a sitting president can be charged?
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019 at 4:06 AM
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    11,925
    Likes Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So did it come up during the Clinton presidency?
     
  8. perdidochas

    perdidochas Advisor Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    25,673
    Likes Received:
    3,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ignorance in the media. People that make up the media aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
     
    Well Bonded likes this.
  9. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    11,925
    Likes Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Even after they discovered the OLC's opinion on the matter?
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019 at 5:41 AM
  10. Raffishragabash

    Raffishragabash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ... Or ...

    maybe the 'mastodons' realized that it will make a mockery of the USA, globally, if we removed a U.S. President from office because he lied about getting his scrotum adultered inside of the Oval Office. Removing Clinton from office would have painted our nation as, so weak, to whereas our enemies would've bombed us before that year was over.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019 at 3:03 PM
  11. BaghdadBob

    BaghdadBob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OR...

    Maybe the donks are a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.

    The ELEVEN counts for impeachment none of which include having sex, but revolve around denying an average America a fair trial for his sexual abuse.

    1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

    2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

    3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

    4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

    5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

    6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in theJones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

    7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

    8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

    9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

    10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

    11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

    Which none of the above were ever reviewed by donk Senators because the criminality of their leadership is a given, and t's politics & the party before country for the left.:roll:
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019 at 7:44 PM
  12. Raffishragabash

    Raffishragabash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "...he lied about getting his scrotum adultered inside of the Oval Office..."
     

Share This Page